To address inequities in the distribution of environmental benefits and harms, since the 1990s advocates have experimented with Environmental Justice Funds. Environmental Justice Funds, when applied correctly, compensate impacted residents, while also developing programming that more equitably distributes benefits and prevents future harm. However, as Environmental Justice Funds have evolved, debate on their impacts has increased. While environmental justice funds have existed in name since the late 1990s, (Shilling, 2009; Thompson, 2023) they became more widespread and robust in their capacity by the early 2000s (Wilson, 2010). However, despite this growth, the funds that exist throughout the United States are rarely under the control of the communities they impact (Fraser, 2009). Academics agree that a crucial component of environmental funds is their ability to incorporate or be led by the interests of the people (Fraser, 2009; Thompson, 2023; Wilson, 2010). A few Environmental Justice Funds have achieved this standard and serve as examples, including the EPA-administered Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grant and the Environmental Justice Data Fund.
Both the Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grant (EJTCG) and the Environmental Justice Data Fund (EJDF) are national projects, spearheaded by the EPA and focused on initiatives involving creating green spaces and analyzing historical marginalization due to environmental racism. Many major environmental justice funds are maintained through the federal government, securing their funding from the same “financial pool” as university research funding and various EPA sponsored program (McCaskill, 2022; Karner, 2020; Richard, 2011; Shilling, 2010). While some argue the EPA sponsored initiatives have made gains in improving the availability of green spaces and “climate justice infrastructure” across the nation (Shilling, 2010), others find their work to be inadequate in addressing the root causes of environmental injustice across the nation, specifically in historically marginalized communities (Thompson, 2023). Furthermore, some authors note that funds created with the aim of addressing the unfair environmental burden of marginalized communities across the nation are most often utilized to fund community initiatives in the cleanest, wealthiest, and least environmentally burdened parts of the country (Causevic, 2022; Shilling, 2010; Karner, 2020;).
However, while much of the discussion has centered on federal efforts, regional environmental justice funds play a critical, yet often overlooked, role. These funds, though less documented, are essential for addressing localized issues and incorporating the interests and priorities of the local community. Unfortunately, these funds often face sustainability and “typical non-profit solvency issues” challenges, particularly when they do not have access to EPA federal funding (Karner, 2020). Thus, one must ask, how do regional funds maintain themselves? How might a regional fund ensure its existence beyond 3-5 years (Thompson, 2023)?
Most authors agree that funding must be partnered with philanthropic organizations and nonprofits to ensure that long-term funding can be maintained and organizations are not entirely dependent on the frequently fluctuating interests of the EPA (Hansel, 2017; McCaskill, 2022). Others suggest the need to partner with polluting industries (i.e. oil, cobalt, etc.) either in the interests of managing their downscaling and eventual discontinuation, or to maintain their existence in a more ‘sustainable’ manner (Bullard, 2005; Causevic, 2022; Hansel, 2017; Lowe, 2018; McCaskill, 2022; Roberts, 2009; Thompson, 2023). Given the challenges regional funds face when maintaining long-term efforts and effectively addressing the concerns of local community, many Environmental Justice Funds end up securing federal funding through the EPA, often opting to comply with a different set of rules than what local and state officials might choose. EPA-supported funds typically dispense investments in projects and community petitions as grant-makers (Causevic, 2022; Wilson, 2010). Through sponsorship and donor collaboration, Environmental Justice Funds seek to work with community partners and representatives to complete proposed green space projects, land reclamation, bioremediation, and the remediation or renovation of infrastructure damaged by environmental hazards. However, while some funds such as the Environmental Justice Data Fund and the Pollution Prevention Grant seek to address public health concerns through sponsoring research and granting funding to proposed plans to address said concerns, many grants and funds are solely focused on working with municipal governance and non-profit organizations to address infrastructure concerns (Hansel, 2017; Lowe, 2018; McCaskill, 2022; Roberts, 2009).
Environmental Justice Funds best meet their aims when they encourage community involvement and leadership, support equitable funding distribution that can remain separate from the interests of local governance, provide funding for community education surrounding sustainability, and fund quantitative environmental analysis (Hansel, 2017; McCaskill, 2022; Shilling, 2009; Wilson, 2010). Therefore, to establish an Environmental Justice Fund with the MIRA funds, a parent non-profit must be designated to serve in a stewardship role. Given the current political climate, the chances of further federal funding through the EPA or otherwise are highly unlikely. Therefore, municipal usage of MIRA funds in the South End must either be sponsored by the state government, city government, or the parent NGO. However, the status of MIRA as a ‘quasi-public’ entity creates issues in how we might secure this funding in the event they do not volunteer it. In total, the usage of a fund to collaborate with community partners, increase advocacy and education initiatives, and encourage community/city-led projects and climate resiliency initiatives can be successful, but will only be viable if MIRA votes to create this fund itself.